National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal in Competition Law Matter — Appellant's Unconditional Withdrawal Accepted. Tribunal Allowed Withdrawal of Appeal Under Section 26(2) of Competition Act, 2002 as No Objection Raised by Respondents.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Competition Commission of India in Case No. 96 of 2015, concerning information filed by the appellant on 09.10.2015. The appellant, Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd., decided to withdraw the pending appeal unconditionally and sought permission from the Tribunal. The counsel for the Competition Commission of India and other respondents present had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Considering the submissions made, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and also disposed of the pending interim applications. The decision reflected the Tribunal's acceptance of the appellant's request without any opposition from the respondents.

Headnote

A) Competition Law - Withdrawal of Appeal - Dismissal of Appeal as Withdrawn - Competition Act, 2002, Section 26(2) - The appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal unconditionally, which was not opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, along with pending interim applications. Held that the withdrawal was permissible as there was no objection from the respondents (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant can withdraw the pending appeal unconditionally.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the pending interim applications were also disposed of.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of appeal
  • Competition Act
  • 2002
  • Section 26(2)
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 158

Competition Appeal (AT) No. 13 of 2021

2026-05-08

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Abir Ray, Mr. Vivek Pandey, Ms. Kajal Sharma, Mr. Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Harsh Jaiswal, Mr. Sasthibrata Panda, Ms. Biyanka Bhatia, Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Rohan Arora, Mr. Aman Singh Sethi, Mr. Shivek Endlaw, Ms. Saachi Kale, Ms. Nishtha Verma

Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of the Competition Commission of India.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought permission to withdraw the pending appeal.

Filing Reason

Information filed by the appellant was disposed of by the Competition Commission.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 14.07.2021 by the Competition Commission of India.

Issues

Whether the appellant can withdraw the pending appeal unconditionally.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel submitted the decision to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. Respondents had no objection to the withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the unconditional withdrawal of the appeal as there was no objection from the respondents.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal arises out of the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Competition Commission of India. Considering the submission, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Competition Commission of India, and the appellant later decided to withdraw the appeal unconditionally.

Acts & Sections

  • Competition Act, 2002: Section 26(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Increases Compensation for Workman in Employment Dispute — Court Directs Payment of Balance Amount. Citing the need for fair compensation, the court adjusted the amount awarded to the appellant while allowing the possibility of a fres...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence and Unreliable Dying Declarations. The court found that the dying declarations lacked corroboration and were inconsistent, failing to establish the appellant's guilt under S...